All four of your URLs are different for SEO:
It doesn't matter which one of those four you use, but you have to pick one and use it consistently. Both slashes and parameters create new URLs to ...
First off, please stop thinking in terms of keywords. I assure you that Google does not match keywords. The process is far more sophisticated than simply seeing if a term exists. In fact, term matches are not done. Semantic topic matches are however. So stop thinking in terms of keywords. It is a waste. Think topic.
The URL can be divided into 4 basic parts;...
Sure it will work,
You can consider any of the one link as canonical parent (Means original). and other one as duplicate.
If the url is different in parameter or its order is not an issue.
You can just point one url as its original, SEO Crawlers will identify that.
<link href="http://shoes.com/compare/adidas/vs/nike/" rel="canonical" /&...
You can block URLs that contain ?l= from being indexed by search engine robots by using the following robots.txt directive:
The / indicates the root directory, and * is a wildcard for anything up to ?l=, followed by anything after it.
If you wanted to append all the query parameters you would want to use $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'] to extract them from the current URL, you would then append this to the location of the redirect:
If you only wanted to pass certain variables, you could get them individually and then ...
George answered yours question best.
But why do you want to leave utm_source blank? Looking at yours example link I think that you would like to dynamically fill it with referrer.
Lunametric's posted about that: http://www.lunametrics.com/blog/2014/06/11/campaign-tracking-dynamic-source/
According to that article you can do it in a two different ways: ...
Browser will encode input, according to the character-set used in your page.
I personally avoid , in url structure, because of encoding. It's %2C.
So your url would be like /url=keyword1%2Ckeyword2.
Commas are allowed in the filename part of a URL, but are reserved characters in the domain.
* From the URI RFC:
2.2. Reserved Characters
Many URI ...
If there's no legitimate content at those URLs, just return a 404 status. That's what it's for.
You may also want to include a rel=canonical link in your script's HTML output, to make sure that any other unexpected URL manipulation (like, say, adding extra URL parameters) won't accidentally introduce duplicate content into search engine indexes.
This feature is not yet available in the new Search Console. However, you can continue to use it in the old Search Console. Setting up URL parameters still affects your site even it can't be done from the new Search Console.
Google recently said that certain features of the old Search Console are being retired in March 2019:
I know this is old, but after going through some server logs, I came across the same parameters and I was curious where they were from.
I have found
When Googling them, all I found are Chinese websites. This matches with other log data though. Whether the users location was china, an ...
You don't want to redirect them - that will probably break your site's functionality. There are various means of managing parameters for SEO purposes; since you mention Google Webmaster Tools, you may wish to look at their parameter management tool.
In brief, you can instruct Google how to handle different parameters on your site, e.g., index them, index a ...
Answering this as maybe it will help someone in future.
Basically we appear to have inadvertently added code that renders different markup conditionally on the user-agent (or 'cloaking' to it's friends). There are add-ons for Chrome and Firefox that allow you test this
The version of the page rendered for;
file:/// will open a file on your drive or network drive using the OS. When using http:// you're telling the browser that this is a hypertext link to a file located on the Internet, not locally.
You're likely seeing the parameters after several tries because IE is just saving your history.
Also, having a ? in the URL implies you have some server-side ...
You need to do two things:
Implement redirects for these URL parameters or make sure any page with the parameters has a rel=canonical to remove them.
Set the URL parameters in Google Webmaster Tools under "Crawl" -> "URL Parameters" -> "Configure URL Parameters". Each parameter should be set to "Doesn't effect the page content (eg. tracks usage)" This ...
For UX it's best to just use default values instead. Your case seems kind of rare. Has it been a real problem in some cases?
Thinking out of the box, one solution could be 301 moved permanently reply pointing to the URL with the default value. That would
Solve the problem with search engines.
Give user direct feedback on the incorrect parameters, actually ...
My view would be that it doesn't matter for SEO because I'd be noindexing these pages anyway. Google doesn't want to index your search results in its search results, and it's a great way to get flagged for duplicate content.
Concentrate on SEO for the actual content pages and do whatever's best for the user experience for these kinds of category pages.
SOLVED! Thanks to you guys. Solution:
# Turn Rewrite Engine On
# Set the base to /games/ so we need not include it in the rules
#Rewrite for achilles.php?games_path=xxxxxxxxxx.yyy&category_id=zzz
RewriteRule ^([0-9a-zA-Z_-]+)/([0-9]+) $1.php?games_path=$1.swf&category_id=$2 [NC,L]
I would canoncilise the original page without the parameters to itself, which explains to google this is the original and you can ignore the rest.
<link rel="canonical" href="http://domain.org/site/UserLogin" />
We had to do this to a client website recently, took a few days to kick in but got rid of the duplicates.
Would adding the parameter in (google) Search Console fix those issues?
Even if it did, it wouldn't help 100% because there are other search engines I'm sure your client would want his website indexed in other search engines such as Bing and Yandex, and you may have to use their tools as well to sort out parameters.
Because pages only highlighting user ...
Your site has likely been hacked and a malicious script inserted to add spam-advertising. The script may show one result to the Google bot and other results to humans. You should contact your hosting provider right away to get them to look at the site and see if they can assist in cleaning it. If not, there are security services that can do the same thing ...
Commas are not typically used in URLs and are not recommended. You should stick to using either underscores or hyphens/dashes. That being said, Google recommends hyphens/dashes, so I would go with that: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76329?hl=en
Primarily I see 2 core issues you are facing,
1. I receive the links for the old site that aren't valid.
There are couple of ways you can go past this. Assuming, you have limited number of pages, performing (permanent) redirections using nginx/apache using pattern patching (or exact url). Other could be, handle the links at application level using ...
This appears to be a bug/glitch on Google's end. Many sites have had this same issue (https://support.google.com/webmasters/thread/16282442). Google has also indicated that they may be deprecating the tool entirely soon, so this may be a sign that there is very little resources being dedicated to it.
"Effect": "None" doesn't mean that it isn't working. That means that the parameter has no effect on the output of the page. If you set "Crawl" to "Representative URL" then "Effect" automatically becomes "None" (and stays that way forever). If you set "Crawl" to "Every URL", then "Effect" becomes "Specifies".
You will know it is working when Googlebot ...
This isn't really about Google, it's about the specification for URLs - lower and uppercase are different URLs. This applies to query string parameters as well.
If Google knows of 2 different URL variants, it treats them initially as 2 separate URLs. However, if it turns out they have the same content, Google is generally smart enough to count them as the ...
I recommend that you add the canonical form of the URL to each web page:
<link rel="canonical" href="http://mysite.com/article/42/">
You may also with to do a permanent redirect to the longer URL if you get a request to the shorter one (with the L flag if using mod_rewrite, and before you do the internal rewrite to index.php).
Secondly, I suggest ...
You can, if you are willing to add some additional code to your website. You need to call _setAllowAnchor(true) and add the parameters to a hash query. Here's a proof of concept:
var _gaq = _gaq || ;
_gaq.push(['_setAllowAnchor', 'true']); // tell GA to read params from ...
Having different styles of URLs for different parts of your website is not an SEO problem. As long as your URLs uniquely identify content and are not spammy, they are fine with search engines.
The only place that I could see this becoming an issue is if you tried to apply rules to clean up your URLs. In that case you might need to write different rules ...